Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Emmanuel L. Zafra, Teresita G. Zafra v. Aurora Loan Services LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 15, 2010

EMMANUEL L. ZAFRA, TERESITA G. ZAFRA,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

On December 14, 2010, Plaintiffs proceeding without counsel filed a complaint in this court. Plaintiffs concurrently filed an application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") to prevent Defendants from evicting Plaintiffs from the property located at 1147 Legend Circle, Vallejo, California. However, Plaintiffs have not shown that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider their claims.

"It is a fundamental principle that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). "A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). "[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002).

Although Plaintiffs' include in the title of their complaint "Violation of Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act["TILA"], pursuant to Title [1]5 U.S.C. section 1635(a) and Title 12 CFR 226.23 (d)(I)," the complaint is devoid of allegations showing that federal court subject matter jurisdiction exists. Nor have Plaintiffs identified what relief they seek under TILA. In addition, Plaintiff's prayer for relief requests the federal court to "honor the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement between the parties[,]" but does not explain this request or how it relates to TILA.

Therefore, Plaintiff's application for a TRO is DENIED and Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed since the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. Since Plaintiffs are proceeding without counsel, Plaintiffs have thirty (30) days from the date on which this order is filed to file an amended complaint in this court, should Plaintiffs decide to proceed in federal court rather than in state court.

20101215

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.